George Orwell's classic dystopian novel 1984opens with a surveillance helicopter chopping its blades menacingly through London, peeking inside apartment buildings. The protagonist, a conscience-stricken state worker with no way to blow the whistle, goes home to a "telescreen" watching and reporting his every word, move and even mood.

The totalitarian state apparatus of Orwell's bleak vision was patterned after the world's Communist parties. But many of today's 21st-century Democrat and Republican politicians see no problem with the kind of permanent police dragnet envisioned in the novel.

While Orwell's homeland of the United Kingdom is still the most-surveilled on Earth, recent actions by two big-city mayors will help the United States in the race to capture this dubious honor.

Chicago's mayor Richard Daley, heir to decades of ruthless Democrat machine politics, has been on a camera binge for quite some time now. In late 2004, Daley's Chicago announced plans to install an elaborate network of surveillance cameras in the city. Initially 2,000 cameras strong, the network is designed for ever-expanding, infinite capacity. And this camera network is to have a special feature: software that alerts police to allegedly "suspicious" behavior detected on camera. It sounds like something from the film "Minority Report," but many studies of similar behavioral-algorithm systems have shown high rates of false positives -- "hits" on innocent people. So, watch out -- if the software decides you're "wandering aimlessly," a heavily-armed SWAT team may not be far behind.

That software, paid for with a multimillion dollar grant from the federal Department of Homeland Security, was set to go online in March 2006 -- next month. At the time, Daley justified the surveillance net to the New York Times by saying, "We're not inside your home or your business. The city owns the sidewalks. We own the streets and we own the alleys."

But now that the system's software is set to go live, Daley says cameras on street corners and train platforms just aren't enough for him. Yep, just 15 months later, Daley is ready to admit that he does indeed want eyes inside your private business. He endorsed last week a bill pending in the City Council to require police surveillance in private buildings.

Under the plan, private businesses that remain open more than 12 hours a day and bars that remain open until last call would have to install the cameras also. The bill as written now would not require that businesses hook up their mandatory cameras to city networks, but Chicago Tribune reports that eventually, "the city does plan to link cameras in office and apartment buildings and other private properties to its system."

If you thought that was bad, get a load of what's going on in Houston. There, the police chief wants cameras placed in commercial downtown Houston. As opposed to the situation in Chicago, where the camera plan was introduced with a public-relations focus on placing the cameras in high-crime areas of town, downtown Houston is a high-pedestrian, low-crime area.

What exactly are the cameras there for? (Maybe Houston police will follow the lead of the Alabama State Troopers who, finding themselves at a control panel of cameras in a low-crime area, used them to ogle college girls.)

And here's the kicker: Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt is also advocating that the local building code be changed to require that private apartment complexes install surveillance cameras. Hurtt even said he wants cameras installed, telescreen-style, in private single-family homes if he decides there have been "too many" calls for police assistance from the home.

Hurtt invoked the name of Orwell's dictator in defending his radical proposition: "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is supposed to guarantee protection from unreasonable searches. Hurtt's desire, like Daley's to constantly watch presumably innocent Americans on private property is both unreasonable and unconstitutional.

Democrat Mayor Bill White, who appointed Hurtt, has been equivocating about Hurtt's outrageous idea as the public reaction is tested. If enough Houstonians stand up for their rights to private property, White presumably won't push through the extreme surveillance program. But if Texans don’t stand for the idea that a man's home is his castle, the plan will almost assuredly move ahead.

And camera fever isn't confined to just those two cities. Voters in Philadelphia, birthplace of the Declaration of Independence, may have a chance to weigh in. A city councilman there wants to put the idea of cameras in high-crime areas to a popular vote. Philadelphians may want to consider the example of Chicago and Houston before embarking what is likely to be a slippery slope.

VOTE NOW: Do you support proposals in Chicago and Houston that would put security cameras in private businesses and homes?

When I'm taking a cr*p, I'm not doing anything wrong, but I don't want to be camcorded. Got it?

Well personally i think you need to rethink that a little if this passes you need to be willing to take a cr*p on camera every day and i dont mean be in front of the camera and take a cr*p i mean squat above the camera and takea cr*p on it each and every day until its not functional any more

51
posted on 02/28/2006 10:57:44 AM PST
by freepatriot32
(Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)

Lots of businesses employ cameras in and on their premises. I'd think that apartment complexes would have been using them long ago to catch vandals, theives, etc on their property. They use controlled access now.

But I remain convinced that Americans are so reflexively superstitious about "The Rule Of Law" that they will go right off the end of the slippery slope and accept tyranny, so long as the tyranny is legally and correctly instituted, rather than develop an ethic of selective observance of the law, and intentional breaking of bad law.

Ah yes, that would explain the millions of pot smoking Americans,the failure of Prohibition, the traffic law scofflaws, the worn paths across public parks right next to the "Keep Off the Grass" signs, the billions of dollars owed the IRS, etc, etc.

Where ya from, bub? This country was built on disobeying "authority" and we're better off for it.

Hurtt invoked the name of Orwell's dictator in defending his radical proposition: "I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

I can't recall where I read this, but it referred to the number of colonists acting against the British before the "national" military effort in 1775... many were outraged, but only a handful were involved e.g. the Sons of Liberty, Stamp Act protests, Boston Tea Party, etc. Of course, when it was clear that the Colonial government would unite and support the effort by organizing a government sanctioned Army there was more support... but as you point out still not a majority.

68
posted on 02/28/2006 12:07:59 PM PST
by LambSlave
(The truth will set you free)

Actually you're quite wrong about the 4% although you are correct that a minority agitated for a break from England as a solid majority at the time did not think of themselves as Americans, but rather saw themselves as British citizens and subjects. The original intent of the Colonials was to regain the rights of British citizens.

The real turning point were the French and Indian Wars (which was the first real World War) during which the Colonials saw just how badly the British used them, then demanded that they (the Colonists) pay for the war. The colonials were of the opinion that through their citizenship and payment of taxes and blood, they had payed for the war.

From The Treaty of Paris (1763) the revolution was a foregone conclusion, becoming only a matter of when.

Yes, voters are idiots. They let themselves become lulled into a false sense of security of letting government think for them. We see it all over in smoking bans, government mandated health insurance in business, minimum wage and now, security cameras where there is no need.

This stuff makes my head want to explode. But what is really heartbreaking are the numbers of supposed "conservatives" that see no problem with the idea of Big Brother/Nanny Government.....whether it is cameras, or seatbelt laws, or smoking bans, or food controls.

Please leave me your guns and stuff. We're gonna have a helluva war to fight here and will need all the powder we can get.

you got it i'll leave some to you and some to travis mcgee.I know he ll give them a fight that they will wish they never picked with him and ill keep some for myself.I'm planning on moving to the philippines (you can see why about halfway down my freeper about page :-) )and they have relaxed some of thier gun laws not enough for my taste but they are still a hell of a lot better then chicago, houston,or new york city

84
posted on 02/28/2006 3:54:00 PM PST
by freepatriot32
(Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)

I'm way ahead of you I already got it figured out.I m going to be moving to the Philippines I have a fiance there (more about her on my freeper about page)that already owns a house and a couple of years after I marry her I can become a full fledged philippino citizen or stay in america and become a full fledged slave or a dead resistor.if I stay in america option two would definitly be the option I take because i have sesitive skin and ball and chains chaffe it really bad.

85
posted on 02/28/2006 4:03:14 PM PST
by freepatriot32
(Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)

Daley and Governor Blagojevic are on a commie rampage. The most powerful mayor also runs the state now because his puppet governor just rubber stamps anything he says.

He is also constantly raising taxes and finding new ways of generating revenue like the "amusement tax" for cable tv service....AND the amazing thing is, it's never enough and they are always in a deficit. Buying a car in Chicago would cost you about $2,500 in fees and taxes. Starting a business will cost thousands in permits, fees and city approvals. Breaking ground for a new building will cost you $10,000 - 12,000 for the city to come and do soil samples.

Chicago has seen one of the largest tax base increases in the last 30 years due to the construction boom, but it's still never enough. Empty buildings on a single block have thousands of tax paying condos there now...still not enough.

Corruption and greed are god in Chicago. They would do anything to generate money for the cronies in the city. Nearby casinos were supposed to pay for school problems and the toll roads were supposed to be paid for years ago. What happened? Nothing. People got rich.

Daley sold the Skyway Expressway for gobs of money to a private firm. Still not enough.

Feds need to pinch comrade Daley and his sidekick Blago. Government was not supposed to be a burden to citizens but rather a tool to help business and ensure progress for the commonwealth. It has become a LEACH!

Well, I'm showing people that these types of ideas are nothing new to Chicago. We have idiots in City Hall that think businesses can just keep taking it in the shorts. They WILL eventually run business out of Chicago and into the suburbs. Actually they already have.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.